media
September 5th, 2008 |"I mean who cares if she can talk to Time Magazine? She talked to the American people."
Do people actually care if candidates for executive office can talk to the media?
Is there a role for the media in political campaigns?
Should the press just regurgitate whatever the candidate happens to state as fact or should there be some critical analysis of what the candidate does or does not say?
Disregard the question of whether the press is actually fulfilling their role as opposition to politicians. Do you believe that they should actually have that role at all?
What do you expect out of the media?
16 Responses to “media”
In Soviet Russia, the media IS the government.
Was, no, Steven? (though I fully concede that it’s reasonable to suspect that modern Russia is bringing back the CCCP)
I expect the media to do a little groundwork and ask those questions that they should have been taught in J-school. I get disappointed a lot, too.
The precedent of the media embodying a necessary role of democracy dates back to the American and French Revolutionary Wars. The French, for instance, labeled the media the “fourth estate” (the other three being the clergy, nobility, and bourgeoisie, in that order).
The media has always played an important role in informing the public through its work.
Thus, the inability (or disinterest) of a public official in dealing with our media should be inferred as the inability (or disinterest) in carrying on a dialogue with the electorate itself.
I think the media should go after the candidates and make them offer up support for their claims.
I think all candidates should be required to talk to the media and give interviews.
I think the Mccain campaign cancelling their interview with King beause of “over aggresive” questioning about Palin’s involvement in Alaska National Guard deployments was meant to bully the reporters, was bullshit, and once again showed their true colors.
Obama went on FOX to be interviewed by O’reilly. How cool is Obama to do that? Pretty fuckin cool.
I have no idea if Palin actually supported or went against the bridge to no where. I blame the media. No real hard facts or in-depth analysis. That’s what I’m missing.
Feet on the street. Actual work being done to uncover and tell the inside story. That’s what it is about. That’s a real service. Putting on a nice outfit, shellacing your hair, and being personable is not a service, it’s just entertainment.
Unfortunately the ‘reputable’ media sources have lost their cajones. They gave into the ‘embedded’ reporter concept, which I think they very much regret now. They are afraid of costs and competing against the myriad of newer media sources that have emerged. As a result most stories are muddled by misinformation. People actually see radio talk shows and bloggers (Sorry Smithers) as being on par with traditional news media. People can search and find a news source that justifies their beliefs, and they take solice in ill conceived credibility. Sad indeed.
Ha ha. This all ties in nicely with the abortion argument ala Bike Bubba. He relies on a Google search to pick out his “truth”. Remember the old saw about believing everything you read? Well, apparently in the world on the Internet, everything is true.
Taylor-
Here’s a partial answer:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_conven tion_spin_part_ii.html
Here’s about FactCheck.org:
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.
eople actually see radio talk shows and bloggers (Sorry Smithers) as being on par with traditional news media.
I have a disclaimer.
Rob, I like the site. Thanks. I guess I didn’t realize how much news I just accept without checking it.
Dan, if you think that the Centers for Disease Control is a poor source for learning medical statistics, I shudder to think of who taught you the rules of evidence.
Which ties into the real problem with the media; they too often take anonymous sources and don’t double-check. In an age when Google can bring up thousands of reputable sources in a second, that’s really inexcusable.
I did see on CNN Thur morning their data showing the average income of the attendees at the RNC Convention was a whopping $500,000 a year. I realized that this was an astounding piece of information that I didn’t expect the media to reveal. Imagine what the average Republican delegate can afford to buy. Maybe their own country? Their new ‘connection’ to the Alaska Independence Party may provide fruitful. Here’s a group eager to secede. A marriage made in heaven.
if you check the facts for both campaigns, they are both equally adept at stretching or fabricating the truth. That’s why need a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th party in this process…. If no-one still tells the truth? At least we’ll get more entertaining and competitive lies?
Bubba, my point wasn’t that there is no good information on the Internet. Rather it was that you, like many others, cherry pick your evidence amongst the very muddy waters of information at your convenience. It’s like the recent ad campaign where they say “Oh I’m not a _____, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night”. Well, everybody thinks that they are a friggin genius on a subject because they did a little googling. Armchair experts run rampant.
@dan i: I’m not “a friggin genius on a subject” because I did a little googling. I’m a friggin genius on a subject because I took _one_ _undergraduate_ class on the topic. So there smarty pants!
(yes that was all sarcasm.)
“Should the press just regurgitate whatever the candidate happens to state as fact or should there be some critical analysis of what the candidate does or does not say?”
Somewhere in the middle. The media, as other commentors have mentioned, plays a vital role in expanding on “whatever the candidate happens to say” through thorough and unbiased research to fill in the gaps that are left our when debaters cherry pick their information to support their claim. Any political speech does just the same as these debating commentors.
Analysis, however, should be done by the viewer, rather than the journalist. It is the responsibility of the electorate to search out the whole story, and then form an opinion. Anyone who takes things at face value should understand that they are not getting all of the information. What journalists in the media should do is give us the rest of the facts, so we can compare that to our own belief systems, sometimes tempered by guest analysts invited by the media to give their opinion, hopefully based in some sort of expertise on the subject.
Finding unbiased journalism these days requires an unfortunate amount of time and effort.
pcomeau - nice one.
Finding unbiased journalism these days requires an unfortunate amount of time and effort.
These days? It’s always been the case that a solid bank of knowledge/awareness must be saught (and found) through multiple outlets. I also believe it makes sense to do a majority of one’s research in print. TeeVee is way too easy to spin or muddle; most every pundit goes with their gut and spouts off whatever chain of thoughts are on their mind. Writing takes a good deal more time and care, and there still seem to be some standards.
As for unbiased, good luck. Tuffy provided an excellent source but most everyone has some degree of bias. What is a voter/concerned citizen to do? Again, seek multiple sources - the NY Times, WSJ, Foreign Affairs periodical, etc. If you must have some TeeVee in there skip Fox, MSNBC and the like and check out Charlie Rose who consistently asks intelligent and interesting questions of generally interesting and intelligent guests.